RE: Core 0.15 draft

[Tim Moses <tim.moses@entrust.com>]

Title: RE: Core 0.15 draft

Phill - OK.  I understand. about the AttributeNamespaceName.  But, should not the text of 2.4.1 (above the schema fragment) also refer to AttributeNamespaceName, not Attribute?

 

While we are on the subject of names and syntax definitions for things ... "object"!  It is described as specifying the resource and action (see 2.5.1).  So, should we not choose a name that reflects that (e.g. ResourceAction)?  I don't believe the syntax for "object" is currently defined.  We should remember that the PDP may have to locate and retrieve a policy (e.g. from "the Web" or LDAP) for the resource/action combination represented by "object".  So, allowing the syntax of "object" to be either a URL or DN would be useful.

 

All the best.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:23 PM
To: 'Tim Moses'; Security-Services (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Core 0.15 draft

I have no problems with most of the changes, thanks to Tim for putting in the hard work!

 

AttributeNamespaceName... is introduced as a result of the con call where it was agreed to prevent queries specifying attribute values. The name could well be tweaked, the original change proposal used the same element name twice so I fixed it minimally.

 

Some of the parenthetical comments I would demote to notes however so the main flow of the text is unimpeeded.

 

        Phill

Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227

-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Moses [mailto:tim.moses@entrust.com]
Sent: Wednesday, August 22, 2001 2:11 PM
To: Security-Services (E-mail)
Subject: RE: Core 0.15 draft

Colleagues - On the assumption that the invitation to comment is implied, here are mine; in the form of a marked-up version.  Hopefully, at least the typo changes are not controversial.  Best regards.  Tim.

-----Original Message-----
From: Hallam-Baker, Phillip [mailto:pbaker@verisign.com]
Sent: Tuesday, August 21, 2001 1:59 PM
To: Security-Services (E-mail)
Cc: Security-Editors (E-mail)
Subject: Core 0.15 draft

Attached are the core 0.15 draft and acompanying schemas, the pretty
pictures will follow separately.

        Phill

Phillip Hallam-Baker FBCS C.Eng.
Principal Scientist
VeriSign Inc.
pbaker@verisign.com
781 245 6996 x227